Towards an accurate pressure estimation in injection molding simulation using surrogate modeling
Source abstract
Abstract
The computational cost of high-fidelity injection molding simulations has been growing in the past years making it more andmore challenging to use them for performing analyses such as optimizations or uncertainty quantification. Surrogate modelingoffers a cheaper way to realize such studies and has been gaining attention in the field of injection molding simulation. Inthis work, we propose to compare three surrogate modeling techniques along with two design of experiment methods in theirability to predict the pressure signal at a surface node in a Moldflow simulation by varying process and modeling parameters.A Sobol sensitivity analysis is performed to study the contribution of the varied parameters on the pressure results. In addition,one of the generated models is used along with experimental pressure sensor data to improve the pressure estimationby calibrating the heat transfer coefficients during filling and packing as well as the pressure-dependency coefficient in theCross-WLF viscosity model. This resulted in major improvements of the pressure predictions for all 27 considered cases incomparison to using the default heat transfer coefficients and viscosity model parameter.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Injection Molding Process and Properties · Rheology and Fluid Dynamics Studies · Manufacturing Process and Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. Kennedy P, Zheng R (2013) Flow analysis of injection molds, 2nd edn. Hanser Publishers, Munich; Cincinnati10.3139/9781569905227 ↗
2. Gao Y, Wang X (2009) Surrogate-based process optimization for reducing warpage in injection molding. J Mater Process Technol 209(3):1302–1309. https://doi.org/https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924013608002586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.03.04810.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.03.048 ↗
3. Chen W, Zhou X-h, Wang H-f, Wang W (2010) Multi-objective optimal approach for injection molding based on surrogate model and particle swarm optimization algorithm. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ (Sci) 15(1):88–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12204-010-9517-410.1007/s12204-010-9517-4 ↗
4. Wang X, Gu J, Shen C, Wang X (2015) Warpage optimization with dynamic injection molding technology and sequential optimization method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 78(1-4):177–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6621-x10.1007/s00170-014-6621-x ↗
5. Kang G-J, Park C-H, Choi D-H (2016) Metamodel-based design optimization of injection molding process variables and gates of an automotive glove box for enhancing its quality. J Mech Sci Technol 30(4):1723–1732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-016-0328-x10.1007/s12206-016-0328-x ↗
6. Li C, Wang F-L, Chang Y-Q, Liu Y (2010) A modified global optimization method based on surrogate model and its application in packing profile optimization of injection molding process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 48(5-8):505–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2302-610.1007/s00170-009-2302-6 ↗
7. Kitayama S, Miyakawa H, Takano M, Aiba S (2017) Multi-objective optimization of injection molding process parameters for short cycle time and warpage reduction using conformal cooling channel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88(5-8):1735–1744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8904-x10.1007/s00170-016-8904-x ↗
8. Feng Q, Zhou X (2019) Automated and robust multi-objective optimal design of thin-walled product injection process based on hybrid RBF-MOGA. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 101(9-12):2217–2231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-3084-510.1007/s00170-018-3084-5 ↗
9. Shi H, Xie S, Wang X (2013) A warpage optimization method for injection molding using artificial neural network with parametric sampling evaluation strategy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 65(1-4):343–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4173-510.1007/s00170-012-4173-5 ↗
10. Cheng J, Liu Z, Tan J (2013) Multiobjective optimization of injection molding parameters based on soft computing and variable complexity method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66(5-8):907–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4376-910.1007/s00170-012-4376-9 ↗
11. Xia W, Luo B, Liao X-p (2011) An enhanced optimization approach based on Gaussian process surrogate model for process control in injection molding. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 56(9-12):929–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3227-410.1007/s00170-011-3227-4 ↗
12. Villarreal-Marroquín MG et al (2013) A comparison of two metamodel-based methodologies for multiple criteria simulation optimization using an injection molding case study. J Polym Eng 33(3):193–209. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/polyeng-2013-0022/html. https://doi.org/10.1515/polyeng-2013-002210.1515/polyeng-2013-0022 ↗
13. Gao H, Zhang Y, Zhou X, Li D (2018) Intelligent methods for the process parameter determination of plastic injection molding. Front Mech Eng 13(1):85–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-018-0491-010.1007/s11465-018-0491-0 ↗
14. Kurt M, Saban Kamber O, Kaynak Y, Atakok G, Girit O (2009) Experimental investigation of plastic injection molding: Assessment of the effects of cavity pressure and mold temperature on the quality of the final products. Mater Des 30(8):3217–3224. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261306909000089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.01.00410.1016/j.matdes.2009.01.004 ↗
15. Cross MM (1965) Rheology of non-Newtonian fluids: A new flow equation for pseudoplastic systems. J Colloid Sci 20(5):417–437. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/009585226590022X. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8522(65)90022-X10.1016/0095-8522(65)90022-X ↗
16. Williams ML, Landel RF, Ferry JD (1955) Thetemperature dependence of relaxation mechanisms ina morphous polymers and other Glass-forming liquids. J Am Chem Soc 77 (14):3701–3707. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01619a00810.1021/ja01619a008 ↗
17. Nguyen-Chung T, Jüttner G, Löser C, Pham T, Gehde M (2010) Determination of the heat transfer coefficient from short-shots studies and precise simulation of microinjection molding. Polymer Eng Sci 50(1):165–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.2153610.1002/pen.21536 ↗
18. Stricker M, Steinbichler G (2014) Determination of heat transfer coefficients at the polymer-mold-interface for injection molding simulation by means of calorimetry, 137–141. http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.487375010.1063/1.4873750 ↗
19. Kleindel S, Eder R, Schretter H, Hochenauer C (2014) The elastic mold deformation during the filling and packing stage of the injection Molding Process. Smart Sci 2 (1):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/23080477.2014.1166560310.1080/23080477.2014.11665603 ↗
20. Wang GG, Shan S (2007) Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. J Mech Des 129(4):370–380. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article/129/4/370/466824/Review-of-Metamodeling-Techniques-in-Support-of. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.242969710.1115/1.2429697 ↗
21. Forrester AI, Keane AJ (2009) Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 45(1-3):50–79. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0376042108000766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2008.11.00110.1016/j.paerosci.2008.11.001 ↗
22. Iuliano E, Quagliarella D (2013) Proper Orthogonal Decomposition, surrogate modelling and evolutionary optimization in aerodynamic design. Comput Fluids 84:327–350. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045793013002223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2013.06.00710.1016/j.compfluid.2013.06.007 ↗
23. Razavi S, Tolson BA, Burn DH (2012) Review of surrogate modeling in water resources: REVIEW. Water Resour Res 48(7). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR01152710.1029/2011WR011527 ↗
24. McClarren RG (2018) Uncertainty quantification and predictive computational science: A foundation for physical scientists and engineers, 1st ed. 2018. Springer International Publishing : Imprint, Springer, Cham10.1007/978-3-319-99525-0 ↗
25. Giunta A, Wojtkiewicz S, Eldred M. (2003) Overview design of experiments methods for computational simulations (American Institute of aeronautics and astronautics). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2003-64910.2514/6.2003-649 ↗
26. Jank W (2005) Quasi-Monte Carlo sampling to improve the efficiency of Monte Carlo EM. Comput Stat Data Anal 48(4):685–701. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167947304001033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.01910.1016/j.csda.2004.03.019 ↗
27. Metropolis N, Ulam S (1949) The Monte Carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc 44(247):335–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1949.1048331010.1080/01621459.1949.10483310 ↗
28. Halton JH (1960) On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals. Numer Math 2(1):84–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0138621310.1007/BF01386213 ↗
29. Niederreiter H (1992) Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.Random number generation and quasi-Monte Carlomethods: Author’s expanded lecture notes from his talks at the NSF-CBMS Regional Research Conference on Random Number Generation and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods held at the University of Alaskaat Fairbanks, Aug. 13-17, 1990 (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, Pa.) OCLC: 775728856
30. Sobol’ I (1967) On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals. USSR Comput Math Math Phys 7 (4):86–112. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0041555367901449. https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-910.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9 ↗
31. Faure H, Kritzer P, Pillichshammer F (2015) From van derCorputto modern constructions of sequences for quasi-Monte Carlo rules. Indag Math 26(5):760–822. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0019357715000683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indag.2015.09.00110.1016/j.indag.2015.09.001 ↗
32. Nouy A (2010) A priori model reduction throughProper Generalized Decompositionfor solving time-dependent partial differential equations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199(23-24):1603–1626. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045782510000186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.01.00910.1016/j.cma.2010.01.009 ↗
33. Ryckelynck D, Chinesta F, Cueto E, Ammar A (2006) On the a priori model reduction: Overview and recent developments. Arch Comput Methods Eng 13(1):91–128. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF0290593210.1007/BF02905932 ↗
34. Du J et al (2013) POD reduced-order unstructured mesh modeling applied to 2d and 3d fluid flow. Comput Math Appl 65(3):362–379. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0898122112004397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2012.06.00910.1016/j.camwa.2012.06.009 ↗
35. Simpson T, Poplinski J, Koch PN, Allen J (2001) Meta models for computer-based engineering design: Surveyand recommendations. Eng Comput 17(2):129–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL0000719810.1007/PL00007198 ↗
36. Teixeira R, Nogal M, O’Connor A (2021) Adaptive approaches in metamodel-based reliability analysis: A review. Struct Saf 89:102019. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167473020300989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2020.10201910.1016/j.strusafe.2020.102019 ↗
37. Gratiet LL, Marelli S, Sudret B (2015) Metamodel-based sensitivity analysis: Polynomial chaos expansions and gaussian processes. In: Ghanem R, Higdon D, Owhadi H (eds) Handbook of uncertainty quantification. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11259-6_38-110.1007/978-3-319-11259-6_38-1 ↗
38. Crestaux T, Le Maıtre O, Martinez J-M (2009) Polynomial chaos expansion for sensitivity analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(7):1161–1172. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0951832008002561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.10.00810.1016/j.ress.2008.10.008 ↗
39. Nossent J, Elsen P, Bauwens W (2011) Sobol’ sensitivity analysis of a complex environmental model. Environ Modell Softw 26 (12):1515–1525. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364815211001939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.08.01010.1016/j.envsoft.2011.08.010 ↗
40. Sobol I (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55(1-3):271–280. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378475400002706. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-610.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6 ↗
41. Rosolem R, Gupta HV, Shuttleworth WJ, Zeng X, de Gonçalves LGG (2012) A fully multiple-criteria implementation of the Sobol method for parameter sensitivity analysis: Multicriteria sobol sensitivity analysis. J Geophys Res: Atmos 117(D7). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD01635510.1029/2011JD016355 ↗
42. Spoerer Y, Boldt R, Androsch R, Kuehnert I (2021) Pressure- andtemperature-dependent crystallization kinetics of isotactic polypropylene under process relevant conditions. Curr Comput-Aided Drug Des 11 (9):1138. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/11/9/1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst1109113810.3390/cryst11091138 ↗
43. Efron B (1981) Nonparametric estimates of standard error: The jackknife, the bootstrap and other methods. Biometrika 68(3):589–599. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/68.3.58910.1093/biomet/68.3.589 ↗